After finding the key the party opened the door to Malfeshnekor's prison. The rogue went in first all sneaky like and but was unable to see the invisible Malfeshnekor lying in wait until the vile beast takes chunk out of him with a vicious bite in the surprise round. I call for initiative rolls and everyone groans as a Nat 20 hits the table for Malefeshnekor (I make all NPC rolls openly) causing him to go before even Giser the wizard who is faster than mercury on a hot griddle and definitely before the rogue that now wants nothing more than to just be out of that room. A full claw/claw/bite takes Devar down deep into negative HP but due to Half-Orc ferocity he can still act for another round. He debates on whether to withdraw, collapse outside and hope his friends can raise him, or take an AoO to pull and drink a potion of cure moderate wounds. He finally decides the cure moderate wounds would just delay the inevitable and to go out swinging. He scores a crit with his falchion for max damage just before dropping to the ground in a pool of his own blood and guts. The rest of the party is making ranged and reach attacks from outside the room trying to draw Malfeshnekor away from their injured comrade not realizing the horrible beast can't leave the room. Not being able to get to any of his other assailant he begins to defile the body and taunt them trying to get them to come to the rescue. When that doesn't work he takes a full round action to devour the poor rogue's corpse in front of them an act which causes the recovering alchoholic oracle of Saerenrae to turn back to the bottle.

Remy is one who believes the description/introductory language is part and parcel of how a feat or ability functions. The introductory language of Strike Back makes it clear that the purpose of the feat is to now be able to attack the weapons of someone who is attacking you from beyond your reach.

Remy is one who always ignores the rules he doesn't like to come up with some really absurd positions. There are a number of effects in the game that target a creature but the effect is applied to one of its items. This is nothing new and everyone really understands that fact and I imagine that in all of those other cases Remy understands that as well but is only ignoring now because it doesn't fit his position.

Example:

PRD wrote:

Gravity Bow

School transmutation; Level ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 minute/level (D)
Gravity bow significantly increases the weight and density of arrows or bolts fired from your bow or crossbow the instant before they strike their target and then return them to normal a few moments later. Any arrow fired from a bow or crossbow you are carrying when the spell is cast deals damage as if one size larger than it actually is. For instance, an arrow fired from a Medium longbow normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if fired from a gravity bow. Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses your bow to make an attack the arrows deal damage as normal for their size.

The spell targets YOU but the effect is applied to items you are using. Likewiese, the sunder combat maneuver targets the CREATURE but the effect is applied to the weapon it is carrying. If you can't legally target the creature you can't sunder his weapon. Nothing at all confusing about that.

Without reading everything that's been written since my last post I think it's safe to say all the grammatical arguments have been made and the the OP still probably wont see fit to accept how things work because he has a hard on for his "RAW".

The rules as intended are far more important than the rules as written. Why is that so difficult for people? Think about context and how things are likely intended to work and you will have a clear explaination of function. Don't be overly literal in interpretations because that way lies only madness.

The fact is that all of the grammatical points don't matter one bit. Feats, special abilities, and the like do not apply their benefits to anyone other than their possessor except when stated otherwise. I used Power Attack as an example of similar wording. Their responses for why they have trouble understanding one but not the other:

yumad: Claimed power attack is a personal buff and smite evil affects a target, although this is obviously untrue (and there is even a FAQ saying it is untrue). He has not given any other response.

Swift016: "Did you really?" Yep...that was swift's entire response. How do you argue with such unassailable logic lol.

You are incorrect about what the RAW is. This construction is quite common throughout the rules and is not poorly worded. Abilities, feats, etc...only apply their benefits to those that possess them unless it explicitly states otherwise. Example:

PRD wrote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Power attack doesn't say you take a -1 penalty to all of YOUR attack rolls to gain a bonus on all of YOUR damage rolls. However, it is clearly understood that is the case because it doesn't state otherwise.

Likewise, Smite Evil doesn't need to state that the "all damage rolls" is referring to YOUR damage rolls because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

So, in your mind, there is no way a character can be holding a weapon in hand without being actively threatening with it? That seems like a mighty big assumption on your part. What about SlimGauge's example of holding a stack of swords in both hands like a bundle of wood. Are you literally saying that RAW you think the character is "wielding" all of those swords?

I agree here. There has to be something more than just having something in hand to be considered wielding. If I am fighting with a rapier in one hand and a torch in the other do I incur penalties for fighting two handed because I am "wielding" a weapon and an improvised weapon? That seems to me absurd.

If the devs rule that you may use a reach weapon to attack at 5-feet as an improvised weapon, it suddenly becomes mildly interesting to know the what the original intent was.

PatientWolf wrote:

The answer Malachi and I want to the question is only Yes or No regardless of what the rules text actually says. Both answers are not equally what the designers intended. Both interpretations are possible but only one can be true from an actual RAI standpoint.

MrT, we've already covered this. I've explained exactly what I mean when I use the term RAW and you indicated you understood my explanation though when you use the term RAW in your own posts you mean something else.

So you know exactly what I meant when I used the term RAW as opposed to RAI. You may like not that definition but you know very well what I mean so to act like I mean something different, and even going so far as to reword my statement, is dishonest. Unless we are back to you telling me that I don't get to decide what my own posts mean.

Note that damage type, size and damageis decided ad hoc and done by comparing to other weapons. A scarf has less damage potential than any other weapon, includi an unarmed strike, so damage should be at the most 1, and damage type S, like a really really lame whip. If it is even determined to have reasonabledamage potential to be used as a weapon.

I realize this thread isn't just about Monk of the Empty hand but since they stand to benefit or lose the most by how this is handled I keep referencing them. A Monk of the Empty Hand treats all improvised weapons as either a light hammer, a club or a quarterstaff. So that scarf in the hands of a monk of the empty hands is either a light or one handed weapon weapon and does damage accordingly. Furthermore, at 3rd level he can do whatever damage type he desires.

However, as BBT pointed out it really doesn't change their capabilities to allow them to threaten all the time because they do anyway with their unarmed strikes.

A Monk of the Empty hand is constantly threatening all adjacent areas, even when he has nothing in his hand.

The question, is if he is holding something, does he threaten with the held object?

You know. I had never noticed that a Monk of the Empty Hand doesn't lose Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. I've been misreading that this entire time. You are correct. So it does seem to be intended that if you are holding something that can be used as an improvised weapon that you do threaten adjacent areas.

This would be something that comes up for say, the Monk of the Empty Hand.

I'd hate to take something else away from the Monk.

Yes but you don't want to make them too powerful either.

If you say they that improvised weapons can't threaten at all it kills the Monk of the Empty Hand.

If you say that anytime you hold an object at all you are threatening with an improvised weapon I think you make them too powerful because then they almost always threaten.

There has to be a middle ground I think.

Um, they already have Improved Unarmed Strike, so they do, at least with unarmed strikes.

Yes but a normal Monk with their unarmed strikes can't just decide from round to round what damage type they want to do. I had thought of that as something of a trade off. However, once combat starts realistically the Monk is always going to be using whatever he is carrying as a weapon. So I guess you are right.

Also, the middle groud im hoping for and that i think is fairly close to rai:

You have two hands. You canwield stuff in those hands. When you wield you threaten. Light and 1h weapons require one hand. 2h weapons require two hands. Switching grip to change what you wield is a free action as long as you have the weapons ready for use such as holding them (but not wielding). Improvised weapons work like any other.

So would you consider a Monk of the Empty hand to be constantly threatening all adjacent areas whenever he has anything in his hand?

I'm providing an answer, whether you care to see it or not. I'm contributing to the discussion. Don't try to dictate to me what I can or cannot discuss.

The only answer you are giving is completely irrelevant to this forum. This forum is for determining what the rules actually are not to discuss "what do you do in your game". What Malachi does in his game and what I do in my game at home and whether it works for my group is utterly irrelevant to what the rules of the game actually are. So saying "Does what you are doing now work? Well that is the answer". No it isn't no matter how many times you continue spout it and you know it.

The answer to the question is not Yes and No either. Both answers are not equally valid and true. Both interpretations are possible but only one can be true from an actual RAW standpoint.

I hit the FAQ. While in general i agree with the floating head, "what is wielding?" is such a very cornerstone of the rules that it should have had a clear answer in the cire rulebook.

The whole "what is a weapon" and "what is wielding" iss IMO paizos biggest screw-up. Such basic aspects of combat, that are central to hundreds of other rules, shouldd have mechanical definitions - though those definitions shouöd preferably include some "use common sense" language.

I don't necessarily agree with the part about "what is a weapon" but there is no doubt they really need to define "what is wielding". Unfortunately, since they use it different ways in different places I'm not sure they can give it just one definition. I don't know how they can fix it without clarifying every instance where it occurs which would be prohibitively time consuming and complicated.

...does anyone have any clues as to the question: do improvised weapons threaten?

If, like me, you don't know but would like to know, please hit FAQ. : )

How have you been handling it up to this point? Oh? Cool. That working well for you? Yeah? Well, that is your answer.

No that isn't an answer and jerkish comments like that are designed to just stir up drama not meaningfully contribute to the discussion.

If Malachi wants to know how the experienced game designers on the Pathfinder Development Team actually meant for this to work who do you think you are to imply he shouldn't ask? We have already covered over and over again and everyone completely agrees that if something is working well for your game you are free to keep doing it and aren't a slave to the rules (organized play is a different story but not relevant here). Those who, for whatever reason or even no reason, want to know what the actual rules are and want developer input don't need you popping into every thread to spout this kind of inane and unhelpful comment.

Note the parts in bold. What I am saying is that these two concepts are NOT the same thing. I'm not saying that the devs don't have authority to clarify their intent, I'm saying that their intent is NOT necessarily the same thing as "what the rules mean", and that it is not a good idea to act like they are absolutely and objectively the same. That's what I was pointing out in my last post in the other thread - that you and Malachi are so closely wedded to this assumption that RAI = RAW that even though Malachi repeatedly explicitly clarified that he wanted only RAW, you and he both considered it "obvious" that he really meant RAI. Further, this is why you both, I think, keep acting like my statement that RAI doesn't matter to me is tantamount to throwing out the rules altogether, when I, at least, see a pretty clear distinction. Finally, it also explains why you think I'm being hypocritical, when I'm really not. My stance is not "You are wrong to equate RAI with RAW", it's "You are wrong to equate RAI with RAW UNIVERSALLY". I'm not saying you are wrong to value RAI personally, or that you are wrong to treat RAI as RAW in your own games. I'm saying that you are wrong to ignore that doing so is a choice, not an automatic given, and that making a different choice is exactly as valid as yours.

This does seem to be where our differences lie. We mean different things when we use the terms RAI and RAW. When I use the term "rules as written" I am referring to the explicit and implicit meaning of the words intended by the author. When I use the term "rules as intended" I am referring to the intended mechanical outcome desired by the author. Sometimes the developers make a decision on how something should work and word it appropriately but an unintended consequence they didn't foresee results. What they intended to write and what they intended to happen are two different things. What they intended to write is, to me, RAW. What they intended to happen as a result of what they wrote, to me, is RAI. So that is where our confusion is coming in.

Edit: Trying to explain that made my head hurt and I'm still not sure I explained myself very well. Maybe I'm not qualified to interpret my own posts after all! LOL

I'm out to go play some Pathfinder Munckin. I'm sure you will all be here tomorrow to argue more rules. Enjoy your evening!

I don't really have a problem with that. The GM calls all the shots when it comes to the effectiveness of an improvised weapon. A quill could do, e.g., 1d3-8 damage on a successful hit, and a scarf could do zero period. Combat maneuver? Sure, as long as you take the -4 to hit for the improvised weapon.

I am just very wary of allowing a character to always threaten. It just seems to be begging for a power gamer to find a way to exploit. Also that seems to make Monk of the Empty Hand more powerful than intended if they are always threatening because now that improvised scarf can do damage, and do lethal damage, and of any damage type.

That is true if my words are unclear or leave a gap AND my words were meant to give you a guideline on how to accomplish some task.

If there is some gap or my words are unclear about matters of my personal opinion or in an arguement I am putting forward then my intent is important after the fact.

In short, I'm not trying to give you rules or guidelines that you will later be expected to complete without my presence.

Yes, and the developers clearly intend to be giving us guidelines on how we are to accomplish a task without having to be present at your table to tell you how to do it. We are, thankfully, free to stick our tongues out and do it differently anyway but I, and I am sure others, prefer to know what the experienced game designers intended before going our own way. They may have reasons for doing things the way they did that I didn't think of.

I don't know where the idea of "wielding" and "holding" being different is coming from.

If you are holding an improvised weapon (ala any object), and you want to threaten with it, you can. You don't have to declare that you're holding or wielding it just the same as if you're holding or wielding an actual weapon.

There's still a -4 to attack, and it's probably not going to do great damage, but it's enough to flank.

By that standard you always threaten adjacent squares if you are holding anything at all. Holding a scarf...you threaten because you could use it as a whip. Sitting at your desk writing you threaten all adjacent squares because you are holding a quill. I don't believe that is the intent and that is why I, and others, think that wielding is different than holding.

'It cannot be determined' is a demonstrably false answer. As soon as the PDT answer it, it has been proved to be false. Since there is nothing stopping them ruling one way or the other, the answer most certainly can be determined.

The point is that given the available information a conclusive answer cannot be determined. MrT is saying that the developers opinion on how it should be is no more valuable than anyone else's and certainly less valuable than your table's opinion.

I happen to agree. Once the words are printed then developer or authorial intent don't matter nearly as much. It could be interesting to know, but it doesn't change the RAW.

That is where I disagree. My last post on the other thread was an example of the absurdity of that position. You, and MrT, certainly feel that you are authoritative on the meanings of your own posts.

If I were to misrepresent your argument you would certainly accuse me of a straw man fallacy. However, if your intent ceases to matter as soon as the words are written I could not commit a straw man fallacy as my opinion on what you meant to write is as valid as your own opinion. That is clearly absurd.

We couldn't have a meaningful discussion if you lose control over the interpretation of your words as soon as you hit the Submit Post button. I could put words in your mouth all day long and you would have no standing to object. Clearly, however, you do have the authority to clarify what you meant to say in your own posts. Likewise, the developers are best qualified to tell us what they meant by what they wrote in the rules.

I will agree that their interpretations are no more binding than the basic rules of the game. In a non-organized play game you are free to disregard whatever rules you as a group of players desire whether it be one written in the core book, a FAQ entry or errata. My group could decide they want longswords to do 1d12 damage and have 20' reach. However, if I want to know exactly what the rules mean by the word wield the developers alone are authoritative in telling me what they meant when they wrote it.

If the answer exists, but I don't know what the answer is, is it okay to ask, or is the mere act of asking 'trying to force my playstyle on everyone else'?

There are definate rules in the game. There are also things that the rules don't cover.

There are also things that the rules should cover. I don't know if the rules cover threatening with improvised weapons, but if they don't then they should, because threatening is fundamental to the PF combat rules, not some obscure corner case that is wasting the dev's time. If they rule that reach weapons may attack adjacent foes, then it will be even more important that we know if they threaten or not.

Right...I agree with all of that. You can definitely ask if there is an answer but you don't know it. The problem is we don't really know because of the confusing "wield" terminology which of those three categories this falls into lol.

There could be a current answer we just don't know. There could be no answer because of a lapse in the rules. While I think it would be nice to have a rule on this I don't think this is something that is really that vital to combat as whether or not you can wield a reach weapon as an improvised weapon to strike adjacent foes but you may feel differntly.

Part in bold is the problem. I don't share these assumption. I see no reason to imagine that there is a "right" definite answer to every question or combat situation, and since the phrase "holding a book" can have so many possible meanings, trying to come up with any one rule to cover all of them is inevitably going to create a place where GMs are going to need to 'invent' a new ruling anyway.

Wow, something I can agree with you on. The rules don't cover every possible scenario that may come up in combat. Any combat other than the most simple of confrontations in PF is not intended to, and indeed cannot be, run without a GM to make decisions.

We all agree that the definition of what it means to be wielding is not clear. In this instance reasonable people can read this to mean different things. Without an official ruling a definitive answer does not yet exist.

In the previous thread, I tried to demonstrate that an object could not be both an Improvised Weapon and the object it normally is simultaneously.

Why? A double weapon is two different weapons AND a whole weapon at the same time. Why couldn't one of those two weapons be an improvised one? Does wielding my sword stop me from hitting someone with the hilt?

That topic has been thoroughly discussed on another thread to the point a moderate locked it. Better not to open that can of worms. Those posting on this thread have very strong views which conflict about that particular point.

Although there is no doubt that a DM can make any ruling he wants at his own table, it would be nice to know what the rule actually is.

It would be even more important if the PDT rule that reach weapons can attack adjacent foes as an improvised non-reach club.

Please hit FAQ. : )

If you want to know what the design team thinks a good general guideline is, that's fine, but whatever their intent was in a general sense will still not be "what the rule actually is". What the rule "actually is" is unclear, which currently allows us all to resolve it however makes the most sense. No clarification can possibly improve on that, so why bother?

Stephen has kind of clarified this as well in his posts over on the vital strike thread. Nothing a Dev posts in a thread should be taken as an "official ruling". Only official FAQs and errata should be considered official.

Edit: So I think we need to reopen the entire Human/Kobold/Tail Terror debate. Just kidding! Please don't hit me with whatever improvised weapon is handy!

The FAQ you mean is one about gaining the benefit of the Defending weapon property, and in that instance, 'wield' means 'attack with'.

But 'wield' is meant in different ways in other instances. The wizard's bonded object used to say that the object must be wielded while casting a spell, which would mean that the staff would be unuseable as a bonded object if 'wield' meant 'attack with' in that context, because you wouldn't be able to cast a spell in the same round as attacking with your staff if both actions used your standard action, which is nearly always. This is why it was errata'd to say 'worn or held' instead of 'wielded'.

So different FAQs will have a different meaning for 'wield' in different contexts. 'Wield' is not a game definition.

Hmmm...yeah looks like they have done a poor job of defining a word that really does have a lot of impact. I'm sure that context can tell you in most cases what they meant but there are cases, like here in the improvised weapons rules, where that context is not as clear.

The improvised weapon rule requires the DM to decide which actual weapon most resembles the non-weapon object in question, including the size of that weapon. The rules on using a weapon of inappropriate size don't go away, and if the DM rules that the equivalent weapon is too small or too large for a creature of your size to use effectively, then 'unusable' is the correct answer.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules about needing to 'switch' between 'just holding' and 'wielding'.

My understanding is that there is a FAQ that states that to "wield" you must attack. I don't know where it is, I haven't personally read it, and I have no inclination to look for it because I don't like that rule and won't use it in my games. However, it would be RAW as a dev ruling.

Of course, there is a separate issue of the size of the weapon in each case -- many of the items being discussed are far larger than the items that were originally considered as improvised weapons. All a DM has to do to disallow a particularly big item from being used as an improvised weapon by a size Medium creature is to rule that the item is a Huge improvised weapon.

Yeah this is an area that is going to have to be determined by the GM because the rules don't contain specific restrictions on size limits for improvised weapons. We don't know what size of objects were intended to be considered as such.

Actually, I think the question isn't really about if improvised weapons threaten, because I think RAW improvised weapons are still weapons, and thus if you are wielding one, you count as "armed", but I also think that "wielding" an improvised weapon is typically demonstrably different narratively from merely "holding an item". I think the issue is more asking when you "count" as wielding an improvised weapon.

Yeah, sorry about that misread your post the first time through. I think you make a very important point here. "Wielding" vs "Holding" seems to be the key. You can threaten when "wielding" an improvised weapon and I personally consider "wielding" to be when a character has stated the intent to actually use that object as a weapon.

So if the character holding the book says, as you stated in your first post, "I'm raising this 24K gold plated NY phone book over my head to bash anyone who gets to close" I consider him to be wielding and thus threatening.

It seems like this is another example of a place where there are no clear rules (and a definitive ruling either way creates absurdities), so why not just take it case by case? For the book, if a player says "I snatch up the heavy book and prepare to swing away if anything comes near", then yes, it threatens, IMO. If the player says "I snatch up the book and run to the door" then no, it doesn't. Same with the ring. If a player just tries to make an improvised attack of opportunity with a ring, without giving me some form of narrative forewarning, then that's not going to fly. If instead the player says something like "I'm uncomfortable leaving my weapons outside, so I'll try to at least adjust me rings to give me something to punch with if things go bad", then I feel like it's pretty reasonable (although depending on the situation I might make a perception check to have someone notice him fidgeting with his rings).

Edit: I really like the idea of having a bunch of huge rings lined up like brass knuckles.

Edit(again): I obviously misread this the first time. I completely agree with this.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

This would seem to clearly give us the context of what they mean by "trip". Both sentences even include reference to what you get to do when you knock down/trip your target.

Does anyone really think the writer would put "on foes that you knock down" if he really meant "against foes that you make a successful trip attempt on"?

That does seem to make it pretty clear what the author considers a successful trip and he equates success with application of the result not just a successful roll.

Readied actions seemed so simple but now are making my head hurt after this thread. So consider the following scenario:

PC and NPC start fight 30' apart and neither has a reach weapon.
PC readies an action to trip NPC if he comes within 5'.
NPC moves to attack character with longsword.
PC now performs his trip attempt.

According to the rules for readied actions "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." So the readied action goes off just before the NPC moves within 5'. So how can the PC trip this NPC that is not adjacent? That doesn't seem right. What am I missing?

Edit: In fact according to the wording for readied actions it seems like the trip should go off before the entire freaking move because your initiative would change to just before your opponents.

No, you wouldn't go prior to the entire move. That's the purpose of the "interrupting" language in the next sentence.

This is the scenario I've addressed. When that situation is presented, context is clear that you want to attack once the character is actually in the square you threaten, not as the character enters the square. That's where you exercise your common sense as a GM.

But what if you ready an action for a character to leave or move out of a threatened space? NPC takes a 5' step from a threatened square to a non-threatened square. If your action simply interrupts, at what point are they in their movement? Don't they have to be out of the threatened square for your readied action to trigger? How then can you make your attack if they're out of your threatened area? If their 5' step places them behind cover, does the cover apply to your readied attack or not? There is no "in between" state in Pathfinder, which is what leads to this issue in simulation. That's why the rules say to resolve them prior to the triggering action. In most cases, this will solve any issues. In a couple of situations (like when it's phrased as triggering off of someone entering a space or something...

I agree. The readied action rules just do not work right in some cases if you take them 100% literally. OK, I wasn't missing anything the RAW really does get wierd in those specific cases and the GM just has to work around it. I can live with that.

This clearly demonstrates your misunderstanding about readied actions. Thanks for the clear and direct reply.

Curious. One wonders how your initiative ends up ahead of the character you end up interrupting with your readied action if your action doesn't actually technically occur before that character acted.

Ready says readied actions occur before their triggering event. Initiative consequences say that your new initiative is set at when you acted. In all subsequent rounds, you act before the character who triggered you.

But what do I know? I'm probably just misunderstanding everything.

Readied actions seemed so simple but now are making my head hurt after this thread. So consider the following scenario:

PC and NPC start fight 30' apart and neither has a reach weapon.
PC readies an action to trip NPC if he comes within 5'.
NPC moves to attack character with longsword.
PC now performs his trip attempt.

According to the rules for readied actions "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." So the readied action goes off just before the NPC moves within 5'. So how can the PC trip this NPC that is not adjacent? That doesn't seem right. What am I missing?

Edit: In fact according to the wording for readied actions it seems like the trip should go off before the entire freaking move because your initiative would change to just before your opponents.

If an ability wants me to successfully hit a target in combat, I need to make contact with it in some way. Anything that happens after the hit takes place isn't important for the sake of the ability. My flame damage doesn't care if any regular damage gets through. It triggers once the Hit happens. The purpose here is to hit and once I make contact I have successfully done so. Now any ability that triggers here can do so.

That brings up an interesting question...

Do you get flaming weapon enchant weapon (or similar) when making combat maneuvers? >.>

I seems to follow that indeed you would. I've not used a weapon enchanted like that since... like ever. So... I'm curious if by RAW you should actually roll damage from your flaming enchant on a successful trip.

Hrm. Could be an interesting way to up a tripper build's damage output.

I don't know about a normal trip but it really does seem like these would apply if your weapon has the trip feature. I mean if you have a flaming whip and you use it to trip it only makes sense that the target would get burned by the flaming coiled leather wrapped around their leg.

The spell is completely and wholly negated. Gone. Poof. Then Parry spell triggers, and directs that spell at the original caster.

That makes no sense to me. You say the spell is negated. Gone. Poof. It never exists. So what does Parry spell direct back at the caster? It can't redirect something doesn't exist. The result of Parry Spell must occur before the spell goes poof in order to have anything to redirect.

This is the smoking gun for my argument. Go back and re-read Malachi's original post. Read it carefully. In fact, continue reading his clarifications about what he wants - note how he never actually says he wants RAI, he wants ONLY RAW (in fact, several times he explicitly rejects questions about what was intended or what "common sense" says). The assertion here that it was "clear" that Malachi was actually after RAI is exactly what I am talking about - the systemic assumption that RAW can only mean what the designers intended to mean. That confusion cuts to the core of the central question of this thread, so I don't see how it can possibly be off topic to call it out and critique it. I will concede, however, that it is at least oddly consistent for you to chastise me for failing to follow the unwritten yet nonetheless somehow obvious intent of the thread, since that's basically what your rules interpretation comes down to as well.

Oh, and to be clear: My OPINION is that people are greatly overvaluing RAI in their home games. My ARGUMENT is that RAI doesn't equal RAW. My suspicion is that confusion over the latter point is the cause of the former.

No that is not your opinion. If Malachi is not sufficiently authoritative to clarify what he was seeking in his post and the developers are not adequately authoritative to clarify what they wrote in the rules then you are not sufficiently authoritative to tell us what opinion you have been putting forth in your posts.

I reject your assumption that your interpretation of your own opinion matters. Rather I believe your opinion is that you want everyone to play the game your way. You don't like everyone seeking answers from anyone that contradicts you. You are here in this thread to troll. You are here to bloviate a bunch of pseudo-philosophical drivel filled with buzz phrases such as "argumenation theory" in an effort to make yourself sound authoritative so that people will play the game your way. Nothing you can possibly say will change my mind on that because I do not consider you to be in anyway qualified to tell me what you intend by your own posts.

If you are going to keep using your feeling that we need to respect the MAJESTY!! and AUTHORITY!!! of the intent of the rules designers as evidence that your subjective reading of the rules is "correct", then yes, I'm going to continue to "deflect" the conversation by directly challenging your claim that such authority even exists. That's like... basic argumentation theory. I get to challenge ALL your arguments and assumptions, not just the ones you want to talk about.

No you do not get to challenge ALL assumptions. The basic assumption of this forum is that it is to discuss the RULES. Hence the name Rules Questions. It is a place to request answers from other players and from the developers both in the forum and via the FAQ system.

You have argued that developer statements don't matter and you don't feel any need to accept them. The rules themselves are nothing more than developer statements on how things work. Therefore, you don't feel the need to accept those either, a fact which you have actually stated. However, if no one feels the need to accept the rules then it becomes impossible to come to a definitive answer on any rules question. So for those like you this forum is useless because you aren't looking for an answer to a question because no answer is possible.

You have stated that you feel the need for dev input and definitive answers to rules questions is ruining the game and you want to convince people to get away from that. That my friend is questioning other people's play style. You don't like that we are here trying to determine exactly what the rules say and what the developers intend. If that is the case go to the homebrew/house rule forum. Talk to the devs about creating a forum gaming philosophy.

Malachi's original post makes it clear he was seeking a developer answer to this question and repeatedly asked people to press the FAQ button to help him get that answer. When a questioner is seeking an answer from the developers then developer input does indeed matter. You might not care about that input but the rest of us do and your arguments that developer input means nothing are off topic.

A question: Would you say that heat metal can only target equipment that are completely made of metal (such as a heavy mace or grappling hook that is not fastened to a rope) but not those that have metal components but are not in whole "metal equipment" (such as a grappling hook with rope or a full plate)? Or, is the metal parts of a full plate a valid target for the heat metal spell?

A rope and grappling hook are different objects you even purchase them separately so that is a false analogy. Just like a spell that targets Orcs can target a Half-Orc because he counts as both. Items like full plate that are constructed of significant amounts of different materials count as both of those materials. It is one single object, Full Plate, that is made of leather and is made of metal (and whatever else full plate is made of).

Several people have looked and failed to find them. Would you mind linking them?

I am at work right now (and really should be posting anyway...shhh don't tell my boss) so I can't go back through all 32 pages of posts but I will try when I get home to find my specific posts.

Some of the examples I listed were:
The rules for breaking weapons doesnt differentiate between different parts of a weapon. If a weapon is broken the whole thing is considered broken and if destroyed the whole thing is considered destroyed.

The rules for targeting weapons with spells such as warp wood or heat metal treat them as single objects and only take into account the materials used in the construction of the weapon as a whole not the individual parts.

The rules for damage don't list different damage types for each part of the weapon they treat the weapon as a single object that does the stated damage type.

When you roll a 1 on your saving throw and have to determine which objects are effected the rules treat weapons as a whole single object for determining whether it is affected. In other words you don't check to see if each part is effected independently.

This is quite simply because doing damage to a hand also deals damage to a person. Just because something is part of a whole, doesn't mean that it is entirely separate from that whole. If I punch someone it is because I used my fist to do so.. But your interpretation would make that indistinguishable, as I instead hit them with my entire body.

If someone try's to sunder the haft of the spear, they are also sundering the spear itself. As the haft is indeed part of a spear, just as my fist is indeed part of my body.

I can attack with the part (fist) of the whole (body), but you claim I cant attack with the part (haft) of the whole (spear).

I see no rules interpretation that supports this view

When you make an unarmed strike that is exactly how it works. It never differentiates what part of the body you are striking with. Hand or head or foot it is all the same to the rules. I could say my unarmed strike takes the form of a weaponized wet willy but for rules purposes it is all just the same thing.

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

Perhaps you weren't around when this was originally posted.

PRD Boarding Pike wrote:

A boarding pike is an 8-foot-long pole topped with a foot-long tapered metal tip. Boarding pikes look much like longspears, but the metal pike is designed to flow into the wooden haft.

It doesn't get much more RAW than that. Weapons are composed of non-weapon objects.

The description of humanoids says they are creatures with on head, two arms, two legs. However, the rules treat creatures as whole creatures not a collection of non-creature parts. When I hit someone I don't see how many HPs I do to their hand, or their leg. When I cast enlarge person I can't choose just an arm or a leg to enlarge, it enlarges the whole creature. The rules describe what a weapon looks like but its parts are not treated as seperate entities for rules purposes. Go back and look at the numerous examples I've given.

The written general rules are frequently trumped...by other, written exceptions.

You really wanted to say "by other rules" there, didn't you? Except you can't, because there's not one. These weapons don't have a "Rule" that overrides another rule. They simply ignore the completely absolute, unambiguous language of the Rule As it is Written.

So, yes. In a sense, this is my proof.

But, beyond that, if you want to know what the rule "actually says", as you claim, then you want the Rule As Intended.

Lassos and Nets do have "Other rules" that state they deal no damage. In case you were unaware, tables in the book are rules. In the table for exotic ranged weapons under the damage column both lassos and nets have - listed for damage. How do we know by the rules how much damage a medium long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a small long sword does? Oh the table tells us. How do we know how much damage a lasso does? Oh the table tells us and it tells us it is -. The table is where it is written that lassos and nets are excepted.

Where you continue to get hung up on. Where your logic continues to fail, is that weapons are objects that are composed of non-weapon objects.

This is undeniably RAW.

No that is not undeniably RAW. I have been denying it for a quite a while. I have given a great deal of rules support showing that that is not RAW. The only answer to all of the evidence I have given showing that weapons are considered a single object is to be told "Well yeah we know the rules imply that but they don't explicitly state it so neener neener"

You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.

Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

Actually Malachi is the one who dismissed developer input. Both with a quote from SRM from the same thread you are speaking of, and one from James Jacobs which says this is a RAW permitted action.

I don't now what Malachi has done. I'm not Malachi. MrTsFloatinghead has explicitly stated in this very thread that neither developer statement nor developer intent matter.

BigDTBone wrote:

PatientWolf wrote:

Example:

PRD wrote:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category? It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

The improvised weapons rules work exactlyt he same way.

Then why aren't they worded the same way?

Not every rule is worded the exact same way. The improvised weapon rule isn't a feat and isn't formatted as a feat. It is a single paragraph in the equipment section

(Don't get me started about the formatting of the Corebook. My group spent 30 mins last week looking for the table that gives the special material equivelance of magic items. Why in the heck is that stuck in the glossary for Iomedae's sake?!?).

You talk about what the rules imply. That is not RAW. Your argument is invalid, and has been explicitly debunked.

Accordig to a developer implications of the rules are RAW. I've given the example of human's with tails which is the specific topic the dev was addressing. You, however, have explicitly rejected dev authority which is why you say my argument has been debunked. The rules continually authorize or prohibit by implication.

Example:

PRD wrote:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Weapon finesse says you can use dex with a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category. It doesn't explicitly say that you can't use it with weapons not in those categories. However, it is implicitly forbiding the use of Dex with weapons outside of those categories. That is still RAW.

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"

And if someone 'hit you with a gun' it would make no difference to you if they clubbed you in the head with the grip, or pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger?

The result is different but it doesn't change the fact that in both cases the assailant attacked me with a gun. If I am giving a police report I would say he either shot me with a gun or he hit me with a gun. The action performed is different but the object it is performed with is the same a gun.

There is also the possibility that they DON'T implicitly forbid it. Saying its implicitly forbidden requires adding a bunch of rules not in evidence about what is defined as an object, about objects being considered only whole and indivisible for rules purposes. And it's also a reading that makes it so you can't pick up a rock to use as an improvised weapon and makes it so that slapping someone is effectively the same as body slamming them.

That interpretation depends on all parts of a weapon being indivisible.

THe haft of a spear was not intended to cause damage in any means other than in conjunction with the spear point.

Again you are rejecting anything that is not explicitly stated. The rules implicitly tell us what an object is. The rules don't have to define every single English word as if we don't speak the language.

If I were to go to NY city with my Glock 17 and got arrested for carrying a handgun illegally I could not argue with the police that "I am not carrying a handgun. I'm just carrying a slide, barrel, recoil spring, firing pin, trigger components, magazine, etc... and all the parts for a gun and the law doesn't stop me from carrying gun parts just a gun."

Likewise, when you are attempting to use an actual weapon with the improvised weapons rules it is assinine to say "No I am not using a long spear I am using a long spear shaft and a long spear head and the rules don't keep me from using either of those as an improvised weapon"